The herd means protection. The herd means sex. Vital for survival, the herd offers life.
But the herd is no ultruistic patron. The herd giveth…but demands a price: conformity, sacrifice, doing as told.
The herd often seems a mindless mob, at times peacefully grazing, occasionally stampeding into panicked flight. But is the herd merely an unguided throng? An aimless mass?
No! The herd has a leader. The herd has a purpose. The herd will trample all who stand in it’s way.
And whoever controls the herd will wield great power over all society.
Two Types Of Alpha Mares Control The Narrative Today: Feminists And Pop-Culture Raunch Queens
1) Feminists Tell Women To Put Career Above All Else
Feminist alpha mares–like Hillary Clinton–influence women by telling them that they need to pursue career over relationships and having children. Whereas 100 years ago young women grew up with the alpha mares of the day praising marriage and children, many of today’s are growing up with the fempire’s message of career über-alles and that relationships and children should be postponed or foregone entirely. The herd mandate on education has been clear and women responded: look at how women have gone to college in record numbers, outnumbering men roughly 3 to 2.
Read here how some women’s desire for relationships are in conflict with their desire to be good herd members of the sisterhood of the traveling work pants. Also, read the whole article and notice the many red pill comments, including a few by yours truly.
Some young women deeply desire meaningful relationships with men, even as they feel guilty about those desires. Many express the same sentiment again and again: “Why do I, a young and highly educated woman in the 21st century, value relationships with men so highly?” To do so feels like a betrayal of themselves, of their education, and of their achievements.
…many young and aspiring women with whom I spoke felt as though it were counterproductive to their development to prioritize a relationship with a man. This is a new phenomenon that goes against the grain of centuries of female socialization. Historically, women have been encouraged to value relationships, often at the expense of their own aspirations. Today’s young women are part of a new generation of highly educated women who are, of course, still socialized differently than are men, but who feel they ought to focus on their career goals in their 20s, potentially at the expense of developing a relationship. All the women I interviewed felt this pressure, and many expressed anxiety over their desire to prioritize a relationship.
I think it’s ridiculous that young women are shamed for something so deeply innate to most of them, the desire for a loving relationship. It shows that feminists don’t necessarily want women to choose their own path. Rather, it’s “father” feminist knows best! Pointing out how feminists have abandoned common sense and balance, and are fighting against what many women want most, is a good way to show them for the power-lusting agents of intolerance they are. When dealing with the fempire, you can almost hear Darth Vadress talking with the Fempress, “She will join us, or die!”
In further antagonism towards most women’s innate desire to bring new life into the world, see how alpha mares Hillary Clinton and Sheryl Sandberg have firmly implanted their message that career success defines womanly success and righteous membership in the herd; and allowing children to get in the way means failure. Also, read the article to see how one brave rebel was courageous in countering the herd narrative of “children maybe or never” and established a pro-child micro-herd of her own.
I have had many visions of my professional self over the years but none of them involved children. My friends were career-oriented and driven, and for all of us, being a young woman was about proving ourselves in a competitive world. Sheryl Sandberg and Hillary Clinton were urging us forward, reminding us of our endless potential. And it was clear that having a baby before fully establishing yourself professionally was exactly the same as giving up on your potential.
Having seen two of the ways feminists dictate the herd’s direction, let’s move on to those delightfully seductive raunch queens.
2) Raunch Queens Show Women How To Get Higher-Value Badboys
These are the other alpha mares in today’s society. Together with the feminists that tell women to put off commitment and fuck the most exciting men they can find, the raunch queens of pop culture promote sluttiness in dress and action as the way to empowerment. They dress like sluts. They often act like sluts on stage or in real life, with all the panty-less sightings, the Britney-esque “falls from grace” to take celebrity to another level, the posing for Maxim, the risqué film. Proving that they just aren’t innocent girls anymore…if they ever were. Sex, sex, sex, sex. And it sells.
Now there is a complex feedback going on. The raunch queens both drive the market but also cater to an underlying demand deep within their female customers for such a slut-empowering product (I’m ignoring the men who buy their products).
Whereas women were once taught to be proper and chaste, the message now is often to fuck post haste.
What do the raunch queens want?
Money, yes. Fame, yes. But they also often want the sexiest and most famous men. And what do these men mostly demand? Sexy bitches that put out often and easy. Look at the hip hop videos, the pop videos, with lots of nearly naked babes. What do these men sing about? Very often, sex, slutty sex, with no commitment.
Look at that paragon of high culture, Kim Kardashian. She was hot yes, but that wasn’t enough. She had to make a sex video and let it out to get famous and get on the radar of top athletes and entertainment stars that she was a sexy hoe that wouldn’t say no.
The raunch queens provide the message and example that if you want some hypergamous dick, gotta give it up quick.
——————————————————————————————————————–
I will have a follow-up post, likely next week, that talks about the hierarchy of the herd and the influence that the apex-alpha males have on things, as hinted at here in the raunch queens section. The hierarchy of influence on society is apex alpha males, then alpha females, then lower alpha males, then the beta female body of the herd, then beta males.
Aristotle defined happiness as prosperity combined with virtue: feminism believes prosperity to be conquering men; as of virtue – it doesn’t exist. In other words, feminism promises women power at the cost of their happiness. Isn’t it amazing how much feminist who have never been raped, are scared of being raped? They live in a constant fear of men arising and overpowering them and it fuels their never ending hatred and paranoia. At the end, the radicals like Andrea Dworkin are much more intellectually honest, when they say every act of heterosexual sex is rape: that is the logical conclusion that anyone who takes feminism as a philosophy seriously has to accept.
The Raunch queens who aren’t always “feminists”, still take their idea of prosperity to heart (leaving out virtue as well), they just think the best way to conquer men is through sex. Either way, they are not happy, and once sex isn’t a part of the daily discussion or things outside of horniess, like work and family come around, you see the awful job they do at managing themselves, and those who are dependent on them.
Great post.
@Negro Libre
Yes, feminism requires that women sell out some of their soul desires (reln., kids) to get career success and feminist herd acceptance.
The interesting thing about the rape scare is that rape stats have dropped 68% from 1995 to 2010 (completed rapes) and all categories of sexual abuse (attempted rape, completed rape and other abuse) have dropped by 58%. And this is in a time of heightened encouragement to report, so you’re less likely to have women hiding in the shadows today, afraid to report, than in the past.
It raises an interesting issue. Feminists are all about shaming men, calling them creeps, potential rapists and so on. But who are the men that listen to this? They tend to be the more cooperative beta types. Bill Clinton and other badboys sure as hell never got the memo.
Thus, at least at a subconscious level, it seems like the feminists are really trying to set up a society-wide shit test or filter, to weed out the pussies that will allow themselves to be dominated by the Fempire and allow the truly masculine badboys that don’t give a fuck about societal convention to be the only ones approaching women…along with the attractive men that women will flirt with or approach. It’s like the Tom Brady skit on SNL, where everything the average guy does is sexual harassment but not when Tom does it because, well, he’s attractive.
If we’re moving into more of a sexual free market where the provider/protector that will stick around isn’t needed as much and you just want the best genes then let’s think of how this applies to rape. Being raped and impregnated by a man with shitty genes would be one of the worst things to happen to a woman’s high-priced eggs. Evolutionarily speaking, rape by a great-genes man, in the safe/rich environment, would actually make the child’s genes better for most women.
Suddenly the matrix becomes understandable and all this rape angst becomes clearer. What’s really being spoken to is their loathing of average and below-average men. And the angst only gets absorbed by the beta males, really–look again at how old Bill was out there abusing women left and right, according to the women’s testimonies.
@Negro Libre
Raunch queens and their female disciples are really signaling that they want short term mating with the baddest or highest-status men they can get. Then let the chips and the kids fall where they may…they’ll muddle along through that later.
@Marellus
Thanks. Any thoughts on matters equine or otherwise?
“Aristotle defined happiness as prosperity combined with virtue”
Not exactly. The precise definition of happiness in the Nicomachean Ethics is “virtuous activity of the soul.” This depends, in most cases, Aristotle says on a certain amount of “equipment”, not prosperity. (This distinction is important.) For instance, once cannot be liberal if one is impoverished yet liberality is a virtue. Or, more generally, one cannot be broadly virtuous if one must incessantly toil for bread. Such a person can and must refrain from evil deeds, but for Aristotle virtue is not so much matter of not doing bad things; that is merely the foundation. Virtue is rather fundamentally a matter of positive behavior, the eleven moral virtues (courage, moderation, liberality, magnificence, “greatness of soul”, ambition, gentleness, friendliness, truthfulness, wittiness, justice).
And, equipment isn’t even necessary for everyone. The most virtuous can do without it, e.g., Socrates.
“Prosperity” as an unalloyed good is considered and dismissed near the beginning of the book (I 8; 1089b25). For Aristotle and all other Greek philosophers, the only true title to property is wise use. They were very skeptical of, even opposed to, the pursuit of riches beyond what they termed the basic needs of civilization, which were far below what we think is necessary today.
@Han:
Excellent post, as per usual – and your comment above, about the Tom Brady SNL skit? Priceless! We gotta revisit that because that’s a topic in its own right.
In the meantime though, I just want to ask this: could you give some examples of Women whom you would consider “Alpha Mares” and “Raunch Queens” and how they operate? Thanks!
O.
Great thoughts! I think the big question is what the Alpha Mares really want.
The impression, to me, seems that they want to earn a lot of money and be recognized as extremely important socially, to sample and try lots of different boyfriends who cater to their different needs, before “settling down” into a “have it all” career.
This is the ideal. You are a girl at age 18. Ideally you will go to a big-name school. You plan in the long-term to have kids only 30 or after, and before then enjoy a life of travel. Men should be high-value and disposable, with no serious commitments, so they can be dumped at will. The ultimate Husband should also be extremely high value, a rich doctor who specializes in Krav-Maga and reads Tolstoy.
With this in mind, Alpha Mares dictate norms down to the herd to try to allow this behavior. The lesser mares toe the line, though like in any price-fixing cartel they do try to undermine the Alphas on occasion, as long as it seems they cannot get caught.
On the other side, Alpha Studs are flooded with sex to their hearts content. Your basic horses follow the tune of the herd to try to get access.
Men are not a herd, we are a pack, and the pack exists to fulfill an essential purpose. With modern civilization and no external threats, there is no more purpose and therefore no pack. Therefore there is no male need for a “male imperative” anymore and thus there is not one.
What remains are Alphas that do what they want and Betas that dance to society’s tune to get what they need.
@Obsidian Thanks. I agree that looking into the real reasons between the Tom Brady double standard and the sexual harassment angst deserve a post of their own.
Alpha mares would be the broad category of influential females while raunch queens would be one example of alpha mares, feminists would be another. I think that on the global or large-scale level alpha mares are fairly easy to identify: just look at the females who are in power and have lots of influence.
Some examples of feminist alpha mares:
1) Hillary
2) Nancy Pellosi
3) Oprah (though she doesn’t seem rabidly feminist she’s inbibed a lot of the narrative; a definite alpha mare regardless)
4) Many of the feminist thinkers, writers, and activists:
Raunch Queen Alpha Mares (defined by their selling sex and acting as a symbol of unleashed sexuality; again, some of these may seem tame and not that raunchy due to how much casual sex and sexual display has become much more normal; also, describing them as such is not necessarily a criticism, just a description):
1) Madonna (e.g. Like a Virgin, Justify My Love, kissing Britney)
2) Britney (went from the
3) Lady Gaga (e.g. her song Love Game)
4) Beyonce (not saying she’s a slut but just do a search for her images and see how many of them, especially during performances, have skimpy clothes)
5) Most female pop-stars (some exceptions exist, Adele might be one but she doesn’t do much skimpy dress because she’s a larger woman, with a nice face)
6) At a lower level, look at the soft-porn stars of Playboy and such that use their sexuality to achieve fame and money and in doing so launch themselves more firmly into the orbits of ballers and apex alphas, and thus serve as an example to other women of how they can do it, usually at a more local level.
At the local level, in high school, I remember how many of the prettiest and most popular girls were also quite slutty (not all were, maybe not even a majority but those that were sure were well-known) and because they had so much attention from men and because they were the leaders of their female friends groups they did have a lot of influence over the others. Look at the anecdotal stories you hear of female virgins being shamed by other girls/women as if they were freaks. Of course, one slutty alpha mare took it too far and slept with 9 guys with gf’s over the summer and basically got dethroned as a high school alpha mare because the cheated-on girls ganged up to beat her up and ostracize her–alpha mares can certainly lose their status.
Herds pop up wherever there are women. On the conservative side, I have a Mormon friend who was married and the herd narrative there was to be married SAHMs and anything outside of that was ostracized (in stark contrast with the feminist narrative). My friend was married and had a baby but felt judged for putting the child in daycare to work.
There are other types of alpha mares too, as different as the way of life or ideology they embrace. You can have conservative alpha mare at the national level, though they seem to buy into many aspects of feminism too. As much as I don’t find much depth to her, Sarah Palin could be seen as a conservative alpha mare.
Perhaps Dr. Helen could be seen as a rogue alpha mare trying to rebel against the feminist herd. As has been discusses elsewhere, she gets more credibility on the treatment of men issues because she’s not a man “whining” about things. It would seem like a top priority for feminists to ravage potential rivals like her that want to introduce a new narrative and direction into the herd.
Thoughts?
I don’t think that Dr Helen will have much luck gathering a herd. A LOT more women will have to be hurting before women consider men. The vast majority of women just do not have any empathy for men IMHO. You’ve seen the evidence. We might argue over how many women are NAWALT, maybe.
However, I do believe that her book can relieve a lot of suffering by men and boys. She’s another plausible voice giving confused blue pillers an explanation as to why their reality does not match what they were told. Why they feel as they do, and what they might wish to do about it.
But most important of all: they are not alone (or crazy).
You go girl…
Also of possible interest
http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/why-you-cant-find-man.html
First, it validates work done by The Rational Male, namely his attempts to chart “Sexual Market Value.” No doubt he has gotten guff and accusations of misogyny for daring to chart such a thing, but it is reality and reality cannot be bigoted or sexist. The above chart just provides more empirical data to prove it.
Second, it explains why as women age “they can’t find a good man” or “where have all the good men gone.” As I’ve explained before, they went home. This is a very important point to make because it shows the classical signs of an economic bubble. There was HUGE demand earlier for women. Men would flood the market with attention, effort, time and energy trying to find girls. Just think of all the time you would go to parties, clubs, online dating profiles, etc. etc, just to get a number back when you were 23. Men would make themselves available as much as they possibly could.
But then the bubble bursts.
Men no longer go out “clubbing.” They don’t log into their Match.com account as much. And they could go to that desperate singles event, but the game is on. And soon the supply of attention that was previously flooding the market and driving the SMV of women up, plummets, driving down the “units of attention” per woman.
However, I fear there is a “Wile E. Coyote” experience these ladies have. They have been so accustomed to being flooded with attention, they don’t realize the ground has been taken out from beneath them. They are like the McMansion buyer in 2005 who lost his job in 2006, has to sell the house and “can’t believe,” nay, REFUSES to believe his house had gone down in value. Ironically, he only worsens his situation in delaying the sale based on pride as the market tanks further.
Third, also notice age has an effect. A 25 year old man is looking for a 25 year old woman. But at the age of 55, they 55 year old man is probably not looking for a 55 year old woman. Matter of fact, most of his attention and efforts are going to be expended on a (roughly estimated) 45 year old woman. This means the chart is even worse for aging women.
In short, however, the chart does answer where all the “good men” have gone. They’re still alive. There wasn’t a disease that wiped them out. They merely aren’t in the market anymore and are expending their free time on other things.
@A Def. Beta Guy
Thanks, I think the issue of what the alpha mares want is huge and it would be interesting to think about who’s wants varied the most over the last hundred years. In my next post I’m going to look more at the “herd hierarchy” or whatever you want to call it.
Unintentionally, and if there weren’t birth control, this would lead to getting pregnant by a higher-value man (or an unsuitable one with some kind of good genes) if she chooses well and then tries to find a lower-value man later that will still see it as a good deal.
The conscious thought is that these kinds of women want it all at some level. A few will find it but most won’t and will acquire “expensive” tastes in men while wasting their prime years. Some will adjust once they’re starting down the looks hill but some won’t and will either settle or remain spinsters.
@ADBG
If the alpha mares really wanted the top guys then they should have never let the casual sex genie out of the bottle since that opens up more opportunities for lesser women to have sex with the upper men.
It seems that the feminists want power above all else for feminist women, which in the minds of the more extreme means crushing men and any vestiges of the patriarchy so it can never rise again.
But alpha mares are not omnipotent and if they are in such disagreement with the general wishes of the herd they will eventually be cast out. Perhaps that’s what happened to the more traditional-values alpha mares. The underlying herd wanted more freedom, both sexually and economically, and bit by bit a few rebellious mares started to do their thing and the more dominant and militant of these started attacking the older mares and institutions and since the underlying herd had shifted its zeitgeist they gained control.
@ADBG
The alpha studs have always wanted power and pussy but held their horses to some extent on their pussy-urges to not run afoul society (and ultimately have beta rebellions and chaos on their hands). So, it’s unclear who shifted more, the alpha studs or the herd. I think, however, that it was more the female herd, due to not needing a provider beta anymore. They were the ones that stopped slut shaming each other as much and going for casual. The men who could get it were only happy to oblige.
Now the more sexy or badboy apex alphas (not the political ones that care somewhat about whether the system survives) definitely are going hog wild and that is a big change. When you have Wilt Chamberlain sleeping with ~20,000 women and many others coming within 1 or 2 orders of magnitude of that. At the more local level (in the blogosphere), we have Yohami with over 200 and Bastiat with over 90 by mid 20’s and probably approaching 150 or 200 by now.
I think that males are dual organization types. When times are tougher and require banding together to fight or hunt then they take on a pack-like hierarchy and purpose.
In the present age, where that provider/protector male imperative isn’t so needed then the pack disintegrates and the men fall somewhat more into the male roles described approximately by horse herds, where the alpha gets laid like tile and the other betas follow along with what the female herd is doing as best they can to try and get some at times, and are driven out completely at other times.
@Swithunus
Well, rebellions start out small and who knows what impact Dr. Helen might have. She definitely is marketing her work more at men at the moment but may be able to write a book on “Cowed Women” that really want relationships but are intimidated by the feminist-herd narrative to admit it or act on it. Due to women’s innate desire to be part of the herd, whoever can gain control of it can sway women somewhat. And women, collectively, always have the competing and conflicting desires of promiscuously getting better genes vs. finding the good relationship with emotional and financial safety therein.
Because of these constantly warring desires with women, within the herd members, there is always opportunity for a new rebel mare to attempt to speak to whichever of the two female imperatives is being ignored at the moment and thus either take over the herd or create a smaller splinter herd that can go off into the high country until it gains more strength and numbers..
@Swithunus
The Captain Capitalism chart and post are interesting. Men do seem less interested in pursuing women as they age. Makes sense, there testosterone lowers. I wonder how much of that decline, though, is also due to them getting married and thus not needing to put in as much time to pursue women.
As for the chart, I agree with the general shape and idea of it but am not sure why it says women at 30 have 50% of the SMV that they did at 23-24.
Thoughts?
@ Negro Libre
The emphasis of prosperity over virtue is an important point, and it is pervasive in everything, not just feminism and raunch culture.
By the way, have yall heard about Julia Gillard getting sacked as PM of Australia after her sexism caused a massive slide in male support? As far as I know this is quite unprecedented in modern history. It’s a massive victory for male empowerment.
@Nemesis
I’m glad she’s gone. She also brought in the carbon tax which is a huge waste of money.
It’s true women are strange in the eyes of men.
Women say one thing but want the other.
It’s like that. Fact of life. Deal with it.
But in the end, we just all want to be together. (Even though some women say they dont like men)
and yeah, I’m also glad that Gillard is gone. It was so out of line for her to say something like that. But I feel it is the people who caught it and made it into such big news were the real winners here.
@Han
“As for the chart, I agree with the general shape and idea of it but am not sure why it says women at 30….”
that about sums it up for me. The concept that women lose attractiveness with age is somewhat of a no-brainer. Most men want signs of fertility (even if they don’t want kids). Women can be well/badly preserved as they age (shifting the drop older/younger), the rate it drops is similarly varied. They can become more interesting to talk to as they get older (same as guys), most men aren’t interested in the latest fashions / boy bands. Egg-timers going off will put most men off, so leaving things late isn’t very smart for women. So, although the decline is pretty inevitable (according to most males) there is some wriggle room.
The same for men, really. I can see an increase happening with most guys, but the upper limit and rate would be very varied.
So I’d lose the scaling of the axes (just keep a vague ‘the wall’ marker, without assigning it an age), and probably not superimpose the plots as it might be taken to imply stuff that I don’t think is justified…
TL;DR basically it’s fine for a hand wavey argument, but let’s not get caught up in assigning numbers. In the MMP (and the very related, but not identical SMP); Women’s powers reduce with age, men’s increase with age.
Han Solo, just checking out the site for the first time… gotta say it really kicks ass so far! I still lurk HUS once in a while but yeah this place is now on my favorites list for sure.
RE: the bubble bursting, yeah this will happen one way or another. I’m 28 and all my single friends have given up chasing women. The only ones that get laid semi-regularly hop on POF and pick up a divorced MILF for a temp fuck buddy. I can’t say I blame them one bit.
Also this:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729074.600-gang-of-chimpanzees-kills-their-alpha-male.html
“It’s true women are strange in the eyes of men.”
hallelujah sister, but it’s not all bad. Once men take the red-pill and have an idea of what the hell is ‘up’ with women, then their stress level drops along with their frustration. They can come to actually like women more (some don’t). They may well never marry one (by choice or otherwise), but they can actually enjoy their company. I lived in a non-anglo country for a few years, and I liked the more feminine women there. They weren’t weaker, they were just happy to be different from men…is that so bad? *laughs*
Let’s face it, many of the baser instincts of women are pretty ugly when exposed by the red-pill, but then not all of men’s baser instincts are exactly lofty ideals either. It’s just that for a very long time society has been pedestalising women and demonising men, now that shit is rather unhealthy for the functioning of society. Sugar daddy government has unslipped the leash on women’s options (state support), while it has been busy feminising men (so they become less attractive to those women). Bad combination.
@SDS
nice find. I sure am wondering if an analogy to human society can be made…just saying.
I saw a theory *somewhere* that the gap between rich and poor goes through cycles. There seems to be a limit to how rich the rich can get while leaving the poor growing relatively poorer, before it trips changes that cause the gap to close. Now that would appear to apply in the world of oligarchs vs uneducated food-stampers, but also with alphas with harems and betas with nothing. The guy who was spouting this theory was of the opinion that we’re due a correction towards the non super rich.
If anything in human society gets far too off balanced, it will get corrected usually in a violent society destroying manner. It’s a repititive theme through our history.
@SDS
there are less violent options as well. The Japanese grass-eaters’ attitudes to working their guts out to finance the state for example. When men don’t have a reason to lean-in, they don’t lean-in. Beta men pay for a lot of the female favouring social state. Without a reason to work hard, they find better things to do with their time and effort. Also MGTOW in the anglosphere.
(my boldy of the bit that should ring a bell outside Japan)
now those guys don’t want anything to do with women, but there is another option; becoming a playa (women as recreation, no commitment P&D). Neither option requires the same resources as buying a mcmansion, minivan and supporting wifey and kids.
Bankrupting the state can cause a reset just as surely as a rampage on the streets. Though bankruptcy leading to riots is almost a given, it has happened / is happening in multiple countries in the EU (you need to look beyond the MSM for much coverage of Spain and Greece though).
also
http://www.avoiceformen.com/men/where-have-all-the-men-gone/
Oops, the quote was from
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/foreigners/2009/06/the_herbivores_dilemma.html
2009! Nothing has got better at all, quite the reverse.
@Swithunus
I agree with your assessment about the chart.
+1 It’s interesting to think of why Anglo women seem less feminine. Has it always been that way to some extent? Or just post pill and post feminism (probably a big part of the answer too). But I look at my Mormon aunts and uncles and parents and I don’t see any domineering men and weak women, in a religious sub-culture that supposedly oppresses women (they can’t be the main leaders of the church, though). The men are constantly drilled to treat their wives with respect. If anything, I see my aunts as more dominant than their respectful husbands.
Which leads me to my point. I think that Anglo women and especially those that went out to settle the various British colonies were or had to be tough and independent women, contributing greatly on the farm and in tough frontier environments. The spirit of rugged individualism was certainly shared by these anglo settler women and I think this is part of why Anglo women today in the US,Canada and Australia are less feminine…though feminism certainly took things to a whole nother level with too much man hating in the mix (not saying most Anglo women are man haters).
Thoughts?
@Society’s Disposable Son
Welcome and glad you’re enjoying things here. Look forward to your comments and participation.
Interesting how your friends have given up chasing women. What led them to do that? Do you think it’s permanent or just a temporary lull for them?
Interesting stuff about the underling chimps killing the alpha leader and how the male chimps have to make a trade-off between being competitors for mates and colleagues for defense against other groups.
@Delphi
Even after studying a lot of game and red pill stuff so I think I understand many women a bit better, often, on the individual level, they are still confusing. lol But as you say, that’s life and you do the best you can.
@Swithunus
I agree that there are stable distributions of both wealth and pussy. Swing too far to inequality and it starts creating the conditions for a return to some semblance of equality. With men, if it becomes a sexual free market and the upper males start hogging all the women (or the women hog the few upper males) then the other males start to check out or rebel, weakening or destroying the group.
The upper males (and women too) would be wise to remember this. Look at how many societies get selfish elite who ignore and oppress the poor. Due to armies and police they can often keep this up for a long time but every so often the others due rise up and sometimes overthrow the whole thing. Unfortunately, more often than not, one tyranny replaces another. Look at the French Revolution.
We already had one sexual revolution…in the 60’s. I wonder what the next one will be like? Beta’s taking back their power?
I’ve seen it said that 500 years before the Americas were the new frontier (perhaps requiring the spirit that you describe of both sexes), the British Isles were the new frontier for the Scandinavians: Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Normans* etc. (I’m not saying that the Celts were pussies though…don’t make that mistake).
Feminism has just taught them that they have to yougogirl or be ‘oppressed’. Perhaps they had the character to do it more than the Euros…? IDK I never found ‘feisty’ in a woman being very attractive, I would like to feel they had my back though. I don’t equate feminine with weak, while I equate feisty attitude as stupid unless actually likely to improve outcomes. All a matter of judgement, perhaps that’s the root problem; poor judgement and emotion over thought.
I don’t really have any requirement of the issue, just kicking it around a little.
*as I have pointed out before (elsewhere probably) even the Normans (North Men) were really scandies that the French couldn’t kick out of Normandy (they just Frenchified their language and pledged allegiance to the French king). Even today Normandy is renowned by the French as being where the drinkers hang out – ‘pochetron’ (pour un homme) / ‘pochetronne’ (pour un femme). I have the t-shirt to prove it, no joke at all. That attitude to alcofrol is far more Scandinavian (and British) than the rest of France. *hic*
pour une femme – dammit, proof-read fail, or fail to proof-read
@Swithunus
Incentives matter. Starving the beast is a good way to tame the beast.
@Swithunus
That’s interesting about the British Isles being the frontier before and attracting a lot of invaders. Perhaps that would be one piece in explaining how Anglo women came to be more independent minded and less “feminine” in the first place.
I don’t like feisty women either…but a bit of playful sassiness is very good to generate more sexual tension.
playful’s cool. playing games not. Telling the two apart can be tricky, for me anyway.
Yeah, no one wants a cock tease.
An interesting comment by MM at HUS. Not sure how accurate this is but look at how 3.2% of men report N of 100 or more while 0.3% of women do so. I’m assuming these were opposite-sex-only partners and we need to likely adjust a bit for male/female over/under-reporting but taken at face value it’s fascinating.
In the cdc data, the median N for men 25-44 is 6.1. (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nhsr/nhsr036.pdf Table 4) If we assume that the average number of partners of the top 3.2% is 200 then that would mean they would be having the same number of partners as would if all men had 6.4 partners (close to the median), or if we assume the top 3.2% all had 100 partners then that would be the same number of female partners as all men having 3.2 partners.
The point is that these really high-N must be reaching a wide range of women (though certainly not all, especially those that are married to their only partner ever, assuming he’s not a 100+ manwhore lol).
‘cock tease’ so that’s not like a ‘french-tickler’ then? everyone loves them. Although I suspect that the name the French use for them involves the word ‘English’ (as ‘French Letter’ does in France).
did I wander off topic agian? Sorry.
A french tickler would be more of a pussy tease, would it not?
Here’s an article looking at the men who have claimed 5-figure numbers of opposite sex partners;
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/the-most-sexual-partners-in-history-2394373.html
Yes, there seems to be a reluctance to understand that (putting sex tourism aside for both sexes, homosexuality and sex with tourists) the total number of partners for men needs to equal the total number for women. For each partner claimed by an N>100 guy there is a woman that was that partner. As you say, that corrsponding partner population can be spread thinly (unintentional, but funny), but it does have to add up.
Both your points leave me questioning the stats overall to be honest. The 200 calculation leaves the rest of the guys as virgins or close to that if we live within the budget.
The granularity absolutely sucks, especially when put upon basic questions about the underlying data:
do we know that they’re telling the truth (why/why not lie)
does one man’s ‘yes it was sex’ mean that a woman also counts it? and vice versa to some extent. I’ve heard some strange opinions over what counts, and what doesn’t.
good population (to my inexpert eye), but is it necessarily representative? pink noise? (no I do not mean gay, for those of you in doubt)
tickler? that’s the rumour over here too.
mmm, yeah regarding your quote. It really grates to see five significant figures (12775) given when you see the garbage ‘methodology’ used to generate it. That’s one area that I’d like social scientists to improve in, of many.
OT (but that is my preferred modus operandi, in case you haven’t already noticed).
Just watching the sex scene at the start of episode two of ‘The Fall’ on Netflix. Pretty sure that Gillian Anderson as cougar with a subordinate is the female/feminist projection on how it works for men in charge in the workplace. She is very clearly the one in control. Reverse the sexes and ‘Gillian the guy’ would have just blown his career, job and pension over meaningless sex with a victim woman under his influence – scandal time.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2294189/?ref_=sr_1
rated 8 out of 10, but a very ropey lead review.
She makes a good cougar FTR.
Glad I read the reviews and saved 3.5 hours of my life and a Friday night.
More granularity would be nice but you can get that at the GSS site, so might be worth looking into. Above 25 you don’t even need to have a bin for each digit, just bin by 5’s and by 10’s above 50 since you’ll be dealing with small populations.
It’s interesting how those cougar movies are more popular lately, I guess they have more of a market to sell into now. But glad you avoided wasting time on it.
Ever see The Proposal where Sandra Bullock pressures her underling into marrying her to get a work visa?
The interesting thing is that women see this as funny but if it were reversed, the feminists would be howling about male privilege and abuse.
Never seen that one, not sure that I will after your recommendation. Another couple of hours saved, ta
Yeah, not worth it.
Susan quoted this post at HUS and I replied so I thought I’d add that here, since I was talking about raunch queens driving the pop-culture market, not specifically saying they were directly driving the sexual market, though they certainly have a non-trivial influence on the sexual market:
I was speaking to the actual market of selling their product (e.g. music) and there is no doubt that they are selling a lot to women who don’t fully engage in lots of slutty behavior. So why are the non-sluts or occasionally promiscuous buying this music (either through direct purchase or via the advertisement-supported youtube and radio) from women that dress provocatively and speak of casual sex?
Just one example is Rihanna, who is quite successful in her sales, dresses provocatively, has a badboy relationship and offers lyrics that speak to the sense of sexual empowerment that many young women like to feel (I personally like some of her music and this song but it exemplifies my point):
Sounds like some grinding and naughty dancing that’s leading her to want to “take him away” so that their passion can orgasmically explode.
The female customers for raunch queens who have a deep need for slut empowerment – they are outliers. Perhaps 1-3% of the population.
Not just 1-3% is listening to her music, liking it, thus creating the demand for it while simultaneously being influence to some small degree by it.
@ Han Solo
“It would seem like a top priority for feminists to ravage potential rivals like her that want to introduce a new narrative and direction into the herd.” My take on this – it’s politics. Everybody (and that include females) wants to have a ring of power of their very own (insert voice-over of Smeagol/Gollum saying “my preciouuusss right here).
Poor Dr. Helen
@Aida
Yes, I agree it’s politics.
I think that one of the unrealized truths is how powerful an effect the female herd has on society, at least or especially in places where men aren’t enforcing some strict code on the women, because not only are you getting the vast majority of women fairly in line with the herd narrative (at least broadly and approximately; yes there are outliers like religious conservatives and there still is diversity of opinion and behavior) but by controlling the direction of the female herd you then implicitly control the direction of the majority of men that have to follow the female herd and be what the women are demanding in mates.
Thoughts?
@Swithunus
“However, I do believe that her book can relieve a lot of suffering by men and boys. She’s another plausible voice giving confused blue pillers an explanation as to why their reality does not match what they were told. Why they feel as they do, and what they might wish to do about it.
But most important of all: they are not alone (or crazy).
You go girl…”
Thank you Swithunus, I am not Dr. Helen but I always feel that it makes my day when I hear/read a man say “you go girl”
But why must you start you statement with this –
“I don’t think that Dr Helen will have much luck gathering a herd. A LOT more women will have to be hurting before women consider men. The vast majority of women just do not have any empathy for men IMHO. You’ve seen the evidence. We might argue over how many women are NAWALT, maybe.”
As cliche as it may sound, a journey of a thousand miles begin with a single step. Why argue about NAWALT? Maybe men haven’t just been looking deeply enough
And saying “The vast majority of women just do not have any empathy for men” even if it’s just “IMHO” is a defeatist (I think) stance to have. Make love not war guys! (yup, that’s corny)
“I think that one of the unrealized truths is how powerful an effect the female herd has on society, at least or especially in places where men aren’t enforcing some strict code on the women, because not only are you getting the vast majority of women fairly in line with the herd narrative (at least broadly and approximately; yes there are outliers like religious conservatives and there still is diversity of opinion and behavior) but by controlling the direction of the female herd you then implicitly control the direction of the majority of men that have to follow the female herd and be what the women are demanding in mates.”
Hey Han!
This, I think, is a dangerous idea:
“where men aren’t enforcing some strict code on the women”.
I know the phrase should be taken in context, but the words used kinda implies that men are the ones that should be enforcing some code.
I know, words are just words. But words do matter. And women (or the more common perception of what is feminine) are more sensitive to words than men because for centuries you guys have been the scribes. I mean, where is the female Ovid, Aristotle or Socrates? They were unlettered, uneducated, barefoot and pregnant. How in the world could they have written something like De Anima (Aristotle, around 300 BC) if they could not even write their own names?
Back to the topic at hand, you said:
the fempresses “… not only … are .. getting the vast majority of women fairly in line with the herd narrative (at least broadly and approximately; yes there are outliers like religious conservatives and there still is diversity of opinion and behavior) but by controlling the direction of the female herd you then implicitly control the direction of the majority of men that have to follow the female herd and be what the women are demanding in mates”
Yes, I agree. But that is a case that is true for all herds whether, cattle, horse etc and not just for female humans
@ A Definite Beta Guy
“I think the big question is what the Alpha Mares really want.”
It’s power. Men want it too, incidentally
@Aida
I was trying to distinguish a more sexual/marriage free market environment as opposed to a highly regulated one (like India where dating doesn’t exist much and parents have huge say in who marries whom, though the potential bride/groom can often refuse the suggested match).
I’m not suggesting the dangerous attitude be adopted. It was simply meant to be descriptive of societies (perhaps some Islamic ones like Afghanistan) where the men very much do police female behavior at a certain level and likely get a lot of the women to also do the policing in less violent ways, like mothers telling their daughters how to act.
Perhaps in highly-male-dominated cultures the direction of the herd isn’t so important because the direction is forced upon women by the upper alpha males that rule society and their beta minions who are very glad that they pretty much are guaranteed a wife. My assertion about the importance of the female herd is more relevant to fairly-free societies where women take on their more natural role of being the choosers amongst the men that present themselves.
And in that case the direction of the female herd really becomes the direction of the whole society.
@ Nemesis on June 27, 2013 at 11:42 pm said:
“By the way, have yall heard about Julia Gillard getting sacked as PM of Australia after her sexism caused a massive slide in male support? As far as I know this is quite unprecedented in modern history. It’s a massive victory for male empowerment.”
I’m not from Australia, so what did sexist former PM Julia Gillard do/said? Would like to be informed
I can tell you what “alpha feminist mares” are thinking. Imagine for a moment you are an 18 year old female, right now (no playing with your imaginary breasts! this is serious!). You’re very in tune with reality and attractive (for the sake of argument) and intelligent. You can pretty much do what you want and have more or less any man you want.
You know that in about twenty years, your sexual market value will be a modicum what it is now. Do you get a good degree and follow career ambitions, or do you marry a man, have children early, and become dependent on him? Dependency is a risk, because your market value will decline with age and his will rise, especially while he is gaining valuable work experience which will increase his value and relevance and you are staying home with the kiddos and becoming less and less relevant to the career world.
If you don’t have kids, the whole exercise is an irrelevancy…no one has to stay home, but having a family when you form a family is rather the point of it all. Might as well be roomates too if you don’t bother with kids.
I was in that position long ago and I went with marriage very young, and then obtained a couple of useful degrees, worked home, stayed at home with the kids…but I was taking a risk and let my heart lead. Looking back with hindsight 20/20 I did the right thing, my life has turned out very well. But it was far from a foregone conclusion. I basically just fell so hard in love I rejected reason and jumped.
@Aida
I look forward to increasing numbers of women proving that that are Not Like That. Many red pillers feel that women have long been given the benefit of the doubt, unwisely. How about we don’t ask men to make one last try? How about we require women to pony up a little proof that they are not like that?
Your breezy protestations about how feminists are nice people too aren’t very convincing to those who have seen the videos of the feminist shenanigans at the university of Toronto. Big Red and her pals display the reality of feminism is for men too. AVFM has some articles on the women who are like that.
@Beth
I do have sympathy for the female side of the SMP experience. I don’t think that you’ll find many men here who don’t. Having said that, having a place focused on the male side isn’t too much to ask, is it? It’s not like there aren’t plenty of places for women.
I have young female relatives that I have flatly stated should have the right to make their own decisions. This isn’t a keep ‘em chained in the kitchen after marriage at 16 kind of blog…
Glad it worked out for you and hubby though, that’s cool.
@Aida
A voice for men covered the Gillard thang. I’d link direct but am using a pita slab. Aussies covered it, so it’s pretty authentic sounding. She lost 8% of the male voter support with her misandric antics iirc. In a short period at that, I guess her mates did the maths for the coming election and dumped her arse. Seeing as she got the job by stabbing Rudd in the back in the first place, it seems like a bit of divine justice. YMMV and that’s fine by me, I hate most politicians on principle, so one more down is good whoever it is.
I corrected that for you Swithunus.
@Beth
Welcome. Yes a woman at 20 should realize she’s at or near her peak power of attracting men and has a good 10 years to have found and married the one before both her looks and her odds of finding a man start to decline.
Glad it worked out for you with someone you fell hard for.
Unfortunately, too many young girls fall hard for the wrong type of guy and it ends badly.
The spell check? Cool. Most of the time it’s an aid, but it has a sense of humour about when to go feral. Android and iPad have different quirks, I get caught out as I swap.
Regarding that Captain Capitalism post, here’s an OKCupid study which should serve as a proxy for SMV based on raw age preferences. Of course, age brackets aren’t the whole story since women might prefer a certain age but go lower for a more attractive guy or higher for a richer guy (probably the former for casual, and the latter for LTRs). But it’s certainly good evidence to back up manosphere and evo-psych claims of different age peaks.
http://cdn.okcimg.com/blog/older_lover/Desirability.png
@Swithunus on June 29, 2013 at 7:21 pm said:
“YMMV and that’s fine by me, I hate most politicians on principle, so one more down is good whoever it is.”
This made me smile. Yup, down with politicians, and power-hungry Saruman types pretending to be Jesus (or Muhammad or the Buddha)
@ Han Solo on June 29, 2013 at 7:28 pm said:
“@Beth
Welcome. Yes a woman at 20 should realize she’s at or near her peak power of attracting men and has a good 10 years to have found and married the one before both her looks and her odds of finding a man start to decline.
Glad it worked out for you with someone you fell hard for.
Unfortunately, too many young girls fall hard for the wrong type of guy and it ends badly.”
Right on Han! And may I also add, too many young (and not so young) boys/men /males also fall for the wrong type of girl/woman/female and it ends badly.
And then, because of that adverse experience, would diss every female of the human specie.
Got to go. Have to stitch another vagina (literally).
@Nemesis, that is an interesting plot and shows how women in the earliy 20’s are the most sought after.
Vagina stitching hey? Well, someone’s gotta do it.
Men picking poorly also affects the market if he is able to marry her. This would be more in cases where she is at or below his value.
But in terms of going for someone out of your league, women have a much greater effect on the market because if she does it she will often end up having sex with the guy and might get pregnant or at least emotionally jaded and hurt.
If the man tries for a higher-value woman the she will most likely ignore him and at worst he will just sit in his room and one girl that he would have been a good partner for is out of luck (assuming she’s not being hypergamous) and at best his pining after hotter girls would keep him from pumping and dumping uglier girls. lol
RE: Freinds giving up the chase.
Each has their own reasons but it’s the usual reasons for most. Gold digging, too slutty for a real relationship, expectations through the roof for a date or first meet.
My one buddy that has super tight drunk game gets turned off or bored when women get DTF. He used online dating as an experiment and he sent some really well worded thought ful messages to girls he shared interests with and he got 1/30 reply rate…. then about 6 months later, he got trashed and egged on by his older brother he got on and sent 32 mesages out with simple short messages like “I would wreck that shit”, “I like a woman that knows her place” (ones that had pics of them in the kitchen), and “sup slut”… his inbox 2 days later had 27 messages 8 of which contained phone numbers….
@SDS
Wow, that’s quite the haul he got. There certainly are a lot of women out there looking for badass dominance. Not sure what percent of the overall population are like that since a lot of the good ones are taken in relationships so they’d be harder to find online. The best gf of my life I met online though. Very different than a lot of the girls on there.
Online dating definitely is hard for men though. On POF it’s about 2 or 3 to 1 men-to-women ratio.
Sometimes it’s just best to work on oneself when things aren’t going well with women. I guess some of them could try going to another country where more men are players so that a relationship-minded man is more valued. Still have to filter really carefully and watch out for gold diggers and sluts there too.
Yeah there’s a lot of women seeking massive dominance.. HUS caters to a very select group of women who meeting in real life are like finding a diamond sifting through the ash pile that used to be your hopes and dreams. They always say blah blah blah you’re just seeking the wrong types of girls… Thing is HUS types have such a niche of guys they’ll even attempt to qualifiy that guys stop hitting on those types.. IMO a lot of guys ending sleeping with sluts or even dating them not becuase it’s what they prefer but it’s better than being shut out. It’s either bang a whure or be forever alone.
And to that POF haul… none of those girls even got a reply becuase he deleted his account right after he showed me everything…
It’s sad how much this article reveals about modern day Feminism and intergender/intersex relationships. It creates a society where women feel like they MUST be careerists, even if that’s the direct opposite of what they want. It’s trading the “barefoot and pregnant” for the “educated and lonely”, which really is not better, just different.
Where does that leave men who wish to have a family? Now they aren’t just competing with other men, or even women…No, now they are in direct competition with a societal view that proclaims they bring women down, they are oppressive, or that they cannot hope to ever be as important as her career. Society vs (largely) individual man/woman. We all know who wins…
Don’t get me wrong; I’m physically a woman, and I enjoy the rights I have in America. But I believe modern Feminism has left people blind to their individuality and only fed the beast that is the “herd mentality”. A change has to occur, and soon, before more generations are harmed by the “herd”.
@Tarnished Sophia
It is interesting the traded position you mention, “barefoot and pregnant” for the “educated and lonely”. Feminists talk about women’s choice but in the end they only are accepting if women choose the feminist choice. Any other choice has to be met with the biting teeth of the alpha mare and the whinnying criticism of the beta mares.
Of course men can be and are conformists and enforcers of ideology too. I do suspect that more men are somewhat less conformist than women (though I could be wrong) since historically men didn’t need to always stay in the tribe in order to survive. The stronger and more skilled fighters could wander the forests and high country, amongst the wolves and grizzlies, and have a better chance of surviving than a woman or the weaker men.
+1
I think we will address the issue of what it means to be a man in modern-day society. The provider role used to be one of the most defining characteristics of manhood but now it’s not as needed or valued on the individual level and it’s left a lot of men adrift, unsure of what their purpose in life is.
A similar question can be asked about women. Feminists denigrate the role of mother and want women to be better providers and to have the gov’t (welfare and other benefits) and men provide a lot for them as well with things like child support where no accounting has to be made of actually spending the money on the child.
I do think it’s good that women can work and follow their dreams…but if their dream is to be a mother and care for children–and as we see in the articles above, it is for many–then they shouldn’t be guilted out of pursuing those dreams. Once again, where is the free choice for women that feminists like to talk about?
My personal view is that it’s often a good idea for the mother to be with small children but once they’re in school then she should probably work again. I think too many stay-at-home moms spend too much time shopping, cleaning and otherwise filling in the time with less valuable activities once the kids are in school and should either work or do some kind of more important project than just more shopping.
@Han
I would have agreed with the mother going back to work previously, but now? If she can home school, I might seriously consider that. I have serious reservations about modern schooling with it’s agendas. Maybe even better if mum and dad can both be part time workers. That’s if dad is more STEMmy and mum more likely to be more ‘artsy’. (vice versa if you want, wouldn’t worry me).
@Swithunus
Forgive my ignorance, but what does “STEMmy” or I suppose “STEM” mean? If it’s an acronym, it’s one I’m unfamiliar with.
@Han
(Awesome name, btw…I love Star Wars) Precisely my point. I have not met many MRAs, but have had conversations with almost literal hordes of Fems. More often than not, they bring up the idea of “womanly strength”, the need for “complete independence from wifely servitude” and talks of how women “shouldn’t need to have children to feel complete”.
Crazy thing is, I agree with all of the above…so long as the woman in question wants that. I may still not desire marriage or children, even at my ripe age of 29, but I’m perfectly capable of understanding the viewpoint of a woman (or man) who DOES. Heh…try telling them that, it’s like I said I’d run over a basket of bunnies. There have been some Feminists who don’t spout these beliefs, but they are far and few between.
Free choice for all. That’s the game I want to play.
@Tarnished Sophia
Well, great name back at you! lol I actually want to have a daughter some day and call her Sofia (different spelling but same sound).
I love the old Star Wars (can’t say the same about the new and am somewhat hopeful about the new Disney Star Wars movies but not getting hopes up too high).
I agree with free choice for all (within limits of directly harming others, of course).
STEM means Science Tech Engineering and Math.
OH! How very discombobulating! One had previously considered it a colonial term describing those worthy, allied, fields of endeavour: Science, Technology, Engineering and MathS. (Yes, mathS).
It appears that one was presumptuous in assigning your goodself to one if those virtuous pursuits…Might one offer you multitudinous oh noes?
Sorry, having watched a new episode of the best tv series in the world, I am feeling veritably playful.
@Han
Episodes 1-3 shall not be spoken of. I can only hope that Disney, by token of owning Star Wars AND Marvel can put together some movies/cartoons that one could really sink their teeth into.
I like that you said “within limits of directly harming others” in regards to choices. Goes along with Wicca, which I’ve practiced for 16 years. Couldn’t agree more.
@Swithunus
Sadly, I’m not “in” one of those career paths. I love Science as a whole, and am currently reading up on robotics/technological ethics in my spare time…but alas, my degrees are in Business and Philosophy. Hope to have my MBA or HR certification by 31.
Btw, what exactly is the greatest TV series? ‘Cause right now I imagine your avatar walking around like a member of the Ministry of Silly Walks talking like someone who swallowed a Word A Day Calendar…
@Tarn
Link tomorrow (YouTube willing).
Right nationality.
Kind of a modern version, yes.
When in the mood for loquaciousness, two (calendars, that is, one full of words that I made up c.f. loquaciousness) in fact.
It’s interesting. I read that Mark and Carrie are being put on a diet for the new movies! lol I remember Carrie bitching about that in Return of the Jedi. How rough! Make a bunch of money and become a sex symbol. lol
Also, I’m keeping my hopes in check because too many movies these days have poor plots, poor dialogue and boring characters.
The Batman trilogy was pretty good.
Man of Steel was so-so but kind of flat. Not a huge fan of Ironman though it wasn’t terrible. But the villains just don’t seem evil.
That’s what seems to be missing in a lot of movies is a truly good villain.
LOTR was very good. Game of Thrones too, although the 3rd season was too slow.
@Swithunus
Can’t wait.
@Han
Well, can you blame her? I mean, Carrie is already psycho (from what I’ve heard) and she had to have her ta-tas strapped down during filming so she could run around without getting black eyes. As for Mark, I hope that Disney gives him, oh I don’t know, a spine…cause Lucas sure as hell made sure his character didn’t have one.
I’m cautiously optimistic about the whole thing. Now if you gents will excuse me for the day, I must attend to my laundry and defeating the evil fey king, Gadflow.
So long, and thanks for all the fish.
@Han
Have they run out of English guys to play baddies? Everybody knows that you English baddies, even if they play German die hard villains.
Actually Charles Dance will be in the YouTube link, I guess he took a break from GOT filming. He was also The Last Action Hero English baddie with a crosshairs eye…
Well, in all fairness, Darth Sideous and Chancellor Palpatine were played very well…that is until he fought Mace Windu and became or allowed himself to become disfigured. Some think Palpatine was a changling. After that with his howling and ranting he seemed pretty lame.
An American explains English vs colonial humour
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=tuq8ZU2Uf_0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dtuq8ZU2Uf_0
He also analyses Sex and the city
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=tuq8ZU2Uf_0&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Dtuq8ZU2Uf_0
Hopefully that link works for you
Have a nice pan-galactic gargleblaster while you watch the links above Tarn…
And it’s goodnight from me…
@Swith.
Thanks. I loaded it…had to switch to PC. Will watch shortly.
Reginald D Hunter on Sex and the City
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybcEaD1UFrk
Reginald D Hunter – Racism and the UK vs USA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=NlmVyW0Or6g&NR=1
Both are clips from this – Reginald D Hunter Live (Full)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCCUCVAosJU
He’s great, who come you let him leave Georgia?
I’m just re-watching the whole show. It’s been a while since I last did that, it is packed full of red-pill wisdom…lots relevant to JFG
WOW.
Some of my hope for humanity just died….
@Carrie
I definitely think there is a big segment like that but there’s also a big segment of girls and guys looking for something serious.
In extrapolating anecdotes we need to know what segment of the population we’re dealing with and what ones aren’t being tapped into. For example, good women in good relationships aren’t going to be online at that moment even to respond to such messages.
OTOH, a certain segment of women will respond to that. And there’s probably a middle swath of women that will act crazy or promiscuous a few times but then settle down or realize they didn’t like it.
Interesting article that I plan to do a future post on. Here’s just a small piece that talks about how women are more influenced by cultural attitudes about sex than men are.
And who is providing a lot of that cultural influence to women? Well, feminists and raunch queens!
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/07/how-strong-is-the-female-sex-drive-after-all/277429/
@Han
relevant – http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2012/03/it-was-on-sale-myth-of-vagina-tax.html
Why it’s more expensive to be a woman, and why marketers love selling to women.
vvvvvquotevvvvv
Over at Jezebel this morning there was an article entitled “Turns Out Being Born a Woman Is a Major Financial Mistake”, by Cassie Murdoch. She points out some of the differences between how much it costs to be a girl, compared to a boy, and she is outraged — outraged, I say! — that in this enlightened age of equality, equity, and fairness it still costs more to be a women. Despite having twice as much underwear.
This is hysterical. Literally.
I’m a professional marketer. You want to know why women pay more for everything?
They insist on it.
Female buying habits are so predictable as to be formulaic. When given a choice between two products of rough equivalence, female buyers will almost always choose the higher-priced product based on the notion that a higher cost means higher value. It’s the same impulse that convinces you that the sweater that was originally $70 but sold on sale for $25 was actually WORTH $70 . . . and not the $12.50 it will be at the end of the season.
Women are the perfect consumers — men won’t put up with higher prices for anything but baseball cards and sports cars, but one of the surest ways to increase sales for women is to mark it up and mark it down.
Consider feminine hygiene products. Given a choice of the exact same product in two different presentations at two different price points, women will consistently select the product with the prettier box and the higher price. It’s like a dog and a bell.
Ms. Murdoch wants to know if pink ink is just more expensive. It’s not. It’s profitable.
And who is spearheading all of this nasty gender-based consumerism? You can blame . . . women.
Once there was one household product for both men and women — deodorant, razors, etc. But in the 1970s feminism insisted that women needed special consumer treatment, since women made the majority of the purchasing decisions in the family. And since women are far more brand loyal (that is, they will continue to purchase a brand of product even when a comparable product is available at a cheaper price) the corporations ate it up.
Whole divisions arose to cater to women’s specific consumer needs. Women are a marketer’s wet dream. In advertising you have to convince men that a purchase is both prudent and thrifty. With women, you merely have to invoke anxiety about social ostracization (“Your girlfriends will talk about you if you don’t buy this”), their innate craving to feel desired (“People will like you and want you more if you buy this”) or change the packaging (“New! Same Great Sponges . . . Six NEW Colors!).
Anytime you have to run two campaigns for the same product, that costs money. And of course because they were marketing to women, advertisers and marketers naturally employed women to interpret and create the campaigns — and of course almost all of these women had been forged in the feminist tradition. Surely they had entered the industry with a mind of changing popular perceptions about women and advertising, back in the 1970s, addressing the needs of the modern woman, not the anxieties that had motivated her mother. But did these female marketing execs try to cut women a break? No. Marketing is about making money, not enacting meaningful cultural change. A marketer, male or female, who can’t sell a product at a profit is a pointless expense. And these ladies knew their market. Knew it enough to brutally exploit it. Since women will pay and pay and pay beyond all reason, if you hit the right buttons, it was profitable — and a lot of feminist female marketing executives in the mainstream were as happy to fleece their sisters as the cosmetic industry was.
So all of this crap about a “Vagina Tax” is hysterical. It’s one of the biggest examples of the Rationalization Hamster at work I’ve ever seen. Seriously, ladies, take some responsibility. Do your due diligence the way male consumers do. Buy generics. Do without if it’s not sold at a discount. Forget about style and fashion and fad and stick to the basics. Refuse to accept a higher price or a lesser-quality product . . . if you dare.
“I looked in her purse in the lady’s room
— generic tampons! I wonder what other kind of
twisted character deficits she’s hiding?”
Apple proved how much women are suckers for slick marketing. Sales slump, no one wants their computers . . . so make them pretty. Put them out in colors. Same computer, same software . . . but it’s in PINK! It’s so CUTE! I couldn’t RESIST! And it was 10% OFF so I saved a bunch!
So when it comes to the issue of the Vagina Tax, and why it isn’t women’s fault at all that they are being so unfairly treated, I have but one thing to say:
Ladies, on behalf of the entire Sales, Marketing, and Advertising industries, I humbly thank you.
@Swithunus
That is fascinating, that so many women would rather pay more because it makes them think it’s worth more.
Totally congruent with how women don’t like men who make themselves too available (i.e. charge a lower “price”, therefore not of enough value) and prefer the guy they have to struggle a bit to win over.
The exact same guy could do an experiment on a woman and act charming and hard to get and she’d probably be more likely to like him. Then he could go back with the exact same woman (let’s hypothetically imagine that she could totally forget that prior experience) and act charming BUT easy to get and she’d probably think he was too needy and thus of low value. Or he could do the preceding behavior with two groups of 10 similar women.
It really does blow your mind.
Uncle Swithun has many such nuggets up his sleeve young Jedi (‘s friend).
Females, it seems, are more biddable by marketing as well as in sexuality. Interesting stuff.
Of course, I got it in the neck last time I pointed out the sexuality cues were more generic / flexible for females. Even though the point had previously been accepted. A case of the perception of the messenger having changed, rather than the message. That’s maybe another topic, assuming that some back up research can be found for my theory. (pretty sure it’ll be somewhere).
[…] week we saw how women are heavily influenced by the feminist and pop-culture voices that dominate the message sent to the female herd. In this post, let’s dig deeper into the […]
@Swithunus
First of all, nice new avatar. It’s quite awesome looking.
I read your comment and had to go read this Jezebel article for myself…and found you were 100% correct. It is drivel, and is unfortunately not very intelligent in regards to everyday common sense. While I agree with everything you pointed out above (Seriously? What the hell is wrong with generic label merchandise?), I’d like to point out the one thing the author got right: Women do not negotiate.
It seems that the majority of issues the Jez article talks about could be easily remedied by simply learning how to “talk money”. In the real world, prices are able to fluctuate if you can play the game…odd concept, but very true. GI Joe was right: knowing is half the battle. The other half is actually using that knowledge to bolster your strengths to ensure victory, whether that victory is buying a new car or negotiating a raise.
Oh, and I especially liked how she glossed over the fact that men pay more for life insurance and car insurance, not to mention they don’t often get paternity leave and are more likely to NOT visit the doctor (leading to lower statistical health insurance premiums, not sexism). Oy vey…enough with the “poor me” lines!
@Tarn
why thank you very much. It’s a statue of St Swithun from a Norwegian church ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swithun ).
There were a few reasons that I considered the name, but the deal closer was;
As man with interests in the manosphere, it was a certain resonance.
I like you, please stick around…
To answer your old question. The greatest TV series is Top Gear (the original UK version, though the US and Aussie versions were good R.I.P.). English eccentric lunacy centred on cars, buffoonery performed by three overgrown boys. Yeah they do exist and they are loved. Unfortunately I have waited for the latest episode (S20E01) to be on youtube, but the stuff there seems to be uploaded by foreigners with an invite to their shonky sites.
Have a gander at some classics though:
P50 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJfSS0ZXYdo
P45 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAptCdalzug
Veritable treasure trove of laddish lunacy – hxxp://www.youtube.com/user/TopGear
(http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=top+gear+challenge&oq=top+gear+challenge&gs_l)
The feminist love of victimhood is bizarre to me too, they love it! Almost as much as they hate telling any form of objective truth.
Thanks very much for not needing me to explain that NAWALT, that brains can be masculine oriented or feminine (in fact on a spectrum) in both sexes. I’m not interested in putting down one sex, I just hate all the lies and BS aimed at hiding that all of humanity is not just a blank slate unaffected by biology.
The Norwegian Brainwashing series was really very informative. It has lead to the defunding of pseudo-research by ideologically driven quacademics in Norway. (according to yesterday’s AVFM radio broadcast). I gave some links early on in this blogs life. The quacks were horrified by the idea that the mind was anything but a blank slate – unbelievable in the 21st century.
We are what we are in all our diversity, not cookie cutter clones, that’s interesting
The feminist love of exaggerated victimhood allows them to trigger people’s often-sympathetic and protective impulse towards women and thus gain more cultural and legal power in their favor.
Does your website have a contact pagе? I’m having problems locating it but, I’d lіke tо send you
an e-mail. Ι’ve got some suggestions for your blog you might be interested in hearing. Either way, great site and I look forward to seeing it expand over time.
A related post to the raunch queen portion here:
http://www.returnofkings.com/11615/the-rise-of-the-ratchets
Also, I think we’ll put up a contact page soon but for now you can just leave a comment on one of the latest posts and we’ll see it.
[…] Justfourguys~ Feminists and Raunch Queens are the Dominant Alpha Mares […]
monday i’ll be posting about cameron diaz, who once stated she’d fly in to someone to have sex, is now asking a married friend to set her up, she wants a bf (commitment). however, she doesn’t look ANYWHERE as good as she did back early in her career.
yet another crousel rider that “deserves” commitment.
@Han Solo
Think it is time for a male-dominated society. It certainly is better than the alternative we have now. And about rights. Only those who have the intellectual capacity to govern the country like understanding cause and effect as well as owning property should be allowed to vote.
Allowing the low IQ people and people of non-independent thought to vote is to invite tyranny of the mob.
@danny
Looking forward to your post. Women really need to realize that they have the most power to marry in their 20’s while they’re still hot and more fertile if they want good odds of getting a good husband and still being young. It’s like Dalrock’s post about how more and more young women are delaying marriage and the marriage rates of the older cohorts have dropped as well. This will likely mean you get a lot of older single women piling up that won’t find anyone to marry (unless you get a dramatic turn-around in the marriage rates of each cohort).
@infowarrior1
It’s an interesting question as to whether a society could ever truly be equalitarian. Or is it like balancing a pencil on its tip: it will fall one way or another (eventually).
What is certain is that feminism has gone way too far and benefits the apex alpha males and the career and casual-sex-minded women. It’s not been good for men seeking a wife at their level or for family-oriented women.
It’s an interesting debate regarding the issues you raise about whether society should once again be male dominated or there need to be a certain IQ or other threshold for voting.
For now, I think the tangible steps that lots of men and women could agree on would be to roll back any feminist policies and attitudes that are not promoting equality–and there are lots of those. This is the easy lying fruit since most people are fair-minded but oblivious so once you calmly point out how this or that isn’t fair to men then you can gradually educate the fair-minded and get them on the side of fairness.
@Han Solo
Equality itself is an illusion. So to try to make society equal is to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Which leads to the current mess we have now. I believe the people responsible for the enlightenment set off a chain of events that lead to this mess today.
@ HS: “It’s an interesting debate regarding the issues you raise about whether society should once again be male dominated or there need to be a certain IQ or other threshold for voting.”
The underlying problem with voting for the masses is, we are ALL empowered with selective information, which is worse than ignorance. All of our information comes from second and third hand sources placed in the context the information gatherer wants us to believe. Most of us don’t feel ignorant (it’s always that other guy) but we all are. And we’re ignorant about very important things. That’s problem number one with a democratic republic.
@Liz
That’s a good point about ignorance. 11 years ago I was much more willing to believe in what I heard from society, my former church, conservatives, scientists and others. Through various experiences I have come to see how group think and tribalism infiltrate so many of these groups (and I was always suspicious of liberals and I think they’re often worse than any other group in terms of spewing the BS).
Conservatives I supported the Iraq War only to see no WMD and terrible mismanagement post-invasion. (Though I don’t think Bush was a liar, that’s excessive liberal rhetoric.) Then the housing/mortgage bubble (fueled by both dems and reps). So, I’m much more skeptical about anyone’s political claims these days, though I still think the R’s are better than the D’s overall.
Church My former church was very strict against things like masturbation and after a while I came to realize they were too strict and dogmatic about a lot of things. Huge blow to realize how flawed the very thing that was at or near the center of my life was.
Global Warming I was skeptical of global warming only to hear about 8 years ago that the evidence was “overwhelming” so I figured that it must be so, then only to learn more about it and see that the causal links from C02 to warming are tenuous and exaggerated and with the 15-year hiatus of no warming and also seeing the atrocious rhetoric, distortions and abuse of logic that come from the warming crowd, I am now of the position that there’s probably some warming due to C02 but not nearly as much as the dire cries would make you believe (I’m guessing 1-1.5 degrees C for a doubling of C02 as opposed to the 3-4 that used to be bandied about. And lots of papers have come out recently with shifts down in that value, with many about 2. If the temperature plateau continues then the “accepted” value will continue to lower to about the 1-1.5 degree range where it is my opinion it will likely end up.)
Society I should do a post on how I bought into the feminist mantras of most men being brutes and abusers and women as victims. Thanks to the sphere, I have come to realize that feminism is not actually about equality but more about supremacy for feminist-minded women. And even the sphere can get too carried away with AWALT. But any flaws of the sphere’s views are much smaller than that of the feminist-inspired mainstream, blue-pill outlook. And the dating advice from society was often about as wrong as you could be.
Overall, taking the red pill in all these areas has left me much more skeptical about believing anyone and much more circumspect about being too sure of myself being right. I think my views are more right than before but I also try to look at them and ask myself much more if they really are right or if I’m missing something.
@Liz
again with the logic and reason? really? that stuff is really passé, did no one tell you?
I mean, I agree with you, but were we to allow reason and logic to guide us rather than feewings, emoshions and ‘my reckon is as good as your reckon’…well, what a transformative experience that would be, s’allimsayin’
I wouldn’t put entitlement to vote on a sex basis, but I certainly would want to see knowledge of how consequences work, how the real world works, objective views of the issues, reason and logic etc. Then let the chips fall as they may.
As long as the resultant extreme elite electorate bore in mind that should they not take care of the hard-of-thinking masses, well…you don’t have to be smart to riot. Democracy at its best. Checks and Balances.
We could probably do voter conferences in telephone booths and call in our votes to a single person working a part time job. Which come to think of it, brings us to the up side; politicians wouldn’t have to be billionaires and sold out to special interest groups to fund their campaign which could comprise of personally hand written letters and direct phone calls from the candidates. Call it $100 all in for calls and stamps, each.
Let the nay-saying about my meister-plan begin…
Lefties always want to lower the age of voting. It’s just the
rightself-interested thing to do.some treats for you nice people:
“If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain,” most often attributed to Disraeli or to Churchill.
“The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.”
― Winston Churchill
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that ‘my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.’”
― Isaac Asimov
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart’s desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.”
― H.L. Mencken
Here’s a comment I left at Dalrock’s today:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/10/intrasexual-competition-and-the-strong-independent-woman/#comment-89153
HanSolo says:
August 11, 2013 at 11:55 am
Most women still do want a husband. However, the feminists (like Hillary Clinton) and the raunch queens that use sex to some extent to create their image and sell their product (like Beyonce and Kim Kardashian) are the dominant voices that are leading the female herd. So some of the women listen to these alpha mares and change their behavior to try and be part of the herd.
There was an interesting article in the Atlantic where many educated women felt guilty for wanting a relationship, as if they were betraying the cause for wanting a relationship in their 20′s, before their careers were fully established, heaven forbid that it happened to be during their most fertile years when their bodies are telling them to seek a man and get pregnant.
I think that showing how feminism and raunch culture doesn’t actually serve important interests and desires of most women (namely, to find a decent relationship and have kids) can be a significant tool in turning women away from those things. However, one must remember that feminism and raunch culture do serve real female desires as well, namely guaranteeing resources and independence so that hypergamy can be pursued. Most women have split desires, part of them are geared towards marriage and a stable family while others are geared towards getting pregnant with the best sperm they can find.
The apex alpha males and the alpha females have focused largely on promoting the promiscuous and hypergamous side of women. They’ve focused on promoting independence in women and casting down the beta males so that the women would be freed up and indoctrinated to act as cheap labor, big spenders, liberal-leaning votes, and plentiful pussy.
However, the other side of women has been neglected and repressed and this is where inroads can be made to draw women away from the current alpha mares’ and apex alpha males’ plans for the world.
@Swithunus
I’m not sure why the young vote for liberals more. Is it because they’re indoctrinated so much in school? Or they haven’t had to face what really works? Not that conservatives don’t F up at times but I think it’s about a 75/25 or 67/33 ratio of who’s right more, with conservatives being right more often than the libs.
@HS: Conservatives get it right more often because they are most likely to go with fact over feeling. I’d say that even in the Conservative’s case, 90 percent of the time they er it’s because they placed feeling over fact (case in point, the hysteria drummed up before the Iraq invasion. Fact: If you’ve had a no fly zone over a country where the dictator has offered a reward to every anti-aircraft gunner to shoot down a US jet, and they haven’t succeeded in a decade that country probably isn’t likely much of a threat to the entire free world…but heh, no one asked me).
“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals, and you know it.”
-Will Smith, Men in Black (quote for St Swithunus)
That…that helps…a little
Thanks Liz
@Han 13:26
(now I have a proper keyboard, so here goes)
Youngsters and socialism? (what you call liberalism) *sigh*, it all goes back to
You see in our era (boomers on up to today) most kids have it soft as they’re growing up, seldom incur any bad consequences for dumb decisions (girls especially), not usually hungry, cold etc Poverty these days is defined as living on less than some sort of fraction of the average wage (because 1930’s style poverty / third world poverty does not exist except for niche cases (drugs?)) it’s all good.
So when somebody says, “it’s really bad that kids grow up ‘deprived’ mmkay”. Nice people who have only a superficial knowledge of how the world works (cooked stats & consequences) go, “yeah we should give money to their mothers” as a kneejerk response (socialists love throwing other people’s money at things, in the name of social justice).
deprived is a bad word. you don’t need to know the definition of deprived to know that it’s evil that kids grow up deprived. The fact that some agitator scumbags have cooked up a definition that deprived means ‘no tv in bedroom’ / ‘no car in household’ / ‘no foreign holiday’. Charities for the poor have a living to make, of course they’ll do anything necessary to keep the problem ‘real’ and growing, cooking up stats by twisting definitions is child’s play for the amoral. Also tobacco charities, alcohol charities, homeless charities, salt level charities, child abuse, DV etc etc etc
So the state starts giving money to mothers, especially single mothers who have the poorest kids.
Now, I completely understand the response above. It’s the right thing to do, it’s the nice thing to do. It’s what shallow thinking, or more appropriately emotion based thinking leads to.
So everything is cool until people start noticing an explosion in teen single motherhood – oh noes.
But it’s a logical consequence of enabling teen single mom as a lifestyle, even the rational choice in some cases. A 14 year old girl living with her single mum looks at her ‘life’ choices:
*stay at home with mom and her boyfriend who doesn’t want her around, living off unemployment benefit.
*get pregnant by some teen clueless boy, get social housing for her and baby, child benefit and unemployment.
Such girls aren’t being evil, they are being amoral and practical. That’s the true tragedy and it’s foreseeable by anybody with any sense (i.e. not young liberals).
You’ve gone from (numbers made up) 100,000 kids living in ‘poverty’ to 2,000,000 deliberately born kids without a dad in ‘poverty’ (because you just recook the poverty line and say – look! it’s getting worse! mo’ money. You can’t ‘solve a problem’ as you become unemployable as an expert on a problem that has been solved…how dumb would that be? Keep the problem alive and growing).
As people grow up they start to notice that consequences happen, they realise that for every dollar spent on welfare was taxed off someone who worked (who may decide not to have kids because they can’t afford it), that some ‘bad things’ were actually consequences earned from bad decisions (start of the film ‘idiocracy’).
Such people (‘meanies’ / conservatives / non-liberals *scream*) don’t believe in creating 1,900,000 more single kids because of the stupid knee-jerk way that the 100,000 were helped, enabling stupider decisions to be made by more people. (I’m not saying don’t help, but help in a way that doesn’t make things worse 10 years down the road – that’s dumb).
The unwritten *bad thought* that occurs to
sensible, logical peoplemeanies, that cannot be uttered about such issues, ever, is that sometimes a bad outcome for one person can save a hundred people from making the same stupid decision in the first place. Where is the greater good?As it’s me writing, I’ll try and inject some hopefully meaningful, hopefully humorous humour (I can hope, it’s not been outlawed yet):
http://www.despair.com/mistakes.html <– check out the image, it's great
TL;DR
young people want to do nice things (liberal kids to you), old people should have learned that good intentions don’t ensure good outcomes. Boneheaded, dumb, niceness should only be for the young. So don’t let ‘em vote unless they’re older, smarter and wiser than a Justin Bieber
fan.(you can see why I didn’t want to type that on a fondleslab, I hope. I’m sorry that my super tanker load of wisdom was delayed by exciting hobbies and kindles)
the fourteen year old’s mum is unemployed. the kid has no job prospects, just a future on benefits.
this scenario happens, even the MSM has covered it in the past, in the usual hand-wringing how did this happen kind of way.
South Wales is notorious for poor unemployment prospects (coal mining dead, steel works gone). There are other areas of the UK with similar issues.
Notice that the BBC talks about ‘better sex education’ as if kids don’t know how pregnancy happens, or how abortion is available. Anything to avoid talking about the real social issues and even worse that the state is making it a rational choice for some.
The boys have it worse, they can’t get preggers and get a free flat and improved benefits. But it’s all crap.
Hopefully you will have worked out from my purging that I am not heartless about the problems, I just despair of the idiocy of never actually addressing the root issues. Just keep shovelling the money at ‘good causes’ and making things worse. Creating a larger next generation with worse problems.
@Swithunus
I agree with your redpill-keyboard wisdom and am glad you’re no longer limited to a Kindle. I will respond more after I go to bed and sleep and wake up. I just spent a lot of time doing the new post and am exhausted.
it’s a great post, I have already visited and deposited some Swithdom* upon it…and you’re welcome
*Swithunus’ patent cure and illuminate all wisdom.
@Swithunus
I agree with the quote, “If you are young and not liberal, then you have no heart; but if you are old and not conservative, then you have no brain.”
And with today’s extended adolescence you get more people staying liberal longer! lol
I agree that most people have it easy when compared to really poor countries or ancient history. And it’s a good point about the need to keep industries alive. Advocates for the deprived can’t advocate if there are no deprived so you have to keep raising the level that classifies as deprived.
Perpetual and low-effort-required welfare does incentivize the poor to choose the path that will bring in the gov’t cheque. (notice my use of the ‘qu’ spelling?
). And you can’t help but wonder if the libs in gov’t want to keep the poor that way so that they have to keep voting for them. But no! That would be faaaaaar too cynical.
And that picture is both funny and sad.
And you’re the last person I’d accuse of not having a heart. We could use more sensible hearts like yours in the world.
Impressed with your correct spelling! Throw in more ough’s and s’ (zs are so gauche). Fuze for explosives being an exception. It’s all good.
Sometimes I like to have my membership of the human race confirmed. I have a remarkable gift for being misunderstood, particularly by colonial types.
In fact, in an attempt to close the culture chasm, I am, right now, watching Lonesome Dove.
Just another true story from Unkie Swithers.
We had a scandal in the last few years that the previous leftie ‘Labour’ government deliberately let in a huge number of non-EU immigrants just to change the electorate, move it left…
No references right now as I’m fondleslabbing, sounded despicable and plausible at the time.
My heart was pretty much stamped out by last semester of high school. I had gone in being quite the staunch little liberal, outright socialist at points (without really understanding the concepts, but, then again, I was 15 and probably understood it better than most Americans even then).
After a while I became a lot more comfortable with private markets and extremely doubtful of the government’s ability to organize things, or why it would be superior to the private sector. As well as believing that a lot of people simply weren’t working hard and deserved what was given to them. But I was 16 or 17.
After reading my first economics textbook cover to cover before college, I didn’t see much of a reason for government involvement, beyond preserving a common culture to preserve cohesiveness and military strength.
At this point, I really just wonder, how can people be so stupid as to think it is just a simple matter to “help” people by giving them money? Have they really never heard of “unintended consequences”?
Unfortunately, a lot of people have a knee-jerk moral reaction, and just go with the flow instead of thinking about consequences. They rationalize the knee-jerk, instead of using rational thought to try to figure things out.
This actually came up yesterday. Was sitting with the GF’s family as we discussed family. ‘Scuse me, the fiance’s family. Anyways, the mother said that medical costs were so high because people go to the doctor for every little thing and fat people cost too much and that harms medical care for Grandmother, who is now on her 6th or 7th surgery which she really needs.
I was thinking to myself….
The primary care costs on that Medicaid bill are not that high and can be lowered by having the Medicaid recipeints see Nurse Practitioners. And computers are already better at diagnosing common ailments than doctors anyways. In the near future there will be zero reason to see a doctor for the common cold.
Obesity does not cause VASTLY increased health care costs.
Grandma should not be receiving 6 or 7 costly surgeries at a life expectancy of 6-36 months. THAT is the waste of money.
But her moral code won’t allow that. She needs a scapegoat and Grandma must be protected.
She also said that she thinks it isn’t fair that some children in our state get almost $30,000 spent on them every year through school and some others only get 5-6k, and all children should get the same. Okay. Which children? Illinois? Or are we sending money over to Malawi?
This sort of unexamined moral knee jerkness pisses me off.
‘Unfair’
Is there any word that more effectively switches off all remaining logic in a leftard brain? I don’t think so. It’s beyond magic. Once uttered, there is no way that logic can be restored.
The 77¢ lie is a great example. Quote the highly misleading, to the point of lying, stat. Say ‘Unfair’ and even presidential candidates don’t have the balls to contradict it. Even professional ‘wordsmiths’ know better than argue with facts, reason and logic. Feminists have that shit practiced to perfection, they know it’s not true that women are paid less for the exact same job (companies would be sued and rightly so), but it works every time because it’s ‘unfayer’ at the emo level, logic doesn’t stand a chance. Rinse and repeat, that shit never gets old.
I remember abandoning the word at age five, or so. All it ever evoked in response from the grownups back in the Neolithic era was, “life’s unfair, deal with it”. My sisters had pretty much the same experience, so it wasn’t a sexist thing. It was called growing up.
@Swithunus
Well, it’s good to have your faith restored once in a while, even by us uncouth colonials.
lol
The immigrant thing sounds like the US where latinos tend to vote about 2 to 1 for dems so the dems want them to keep on coming in and citizenise the illegals already in the country. And don’t get me wrong, I love latinos, especially pretty latinas, and have dated quite a few. I just don’t like their typical political leanings.
@ADBG
Congrats on moving from the ranks of the friends that are boys and girls to the ranks of the soon-to-put-a-dent-in-the-declining-marriage-rates ranks.
It’s easy to appeal to and manipulate people’s sense of fairness when you have a dogmatic and monolithical educational system and narrative set up. Feminists, liberals and race hucksters are experts at doing that and then shaming anyone who wants to offer facts as misogynists, neanderthals and racists.
I would love nothing more than to end the liberal stranglehold on the media and education.
And there is a lot of waste in the health care industry. I once had a condition that only needed a $2 “cure” at a pharmacy and instead of telling me that the doctor sent me off to a specialist for more tests and so on. At least the specialist had the integrity to tell me to buy the $2 medicine but that was a good $500 or more later in fees–paid by the insurance company but paid by its customers–to the various people involved.
[…] decide they want to settle down, there will be men waiting for them. Upper class women and other alpha mares might be succeeding at this strategy, but it isn’t working out for many everyday women. […]
[…] work and fun, as the safe and wealthy environment allows them to do and as they have been indoctrinated by the feminist alpha mares (either directly or through their indoctrinated parents). There are likely some men who are also […]
[…] I pointed out in my piece on how feminists and raunch queens are today’s alpha mares, women are more prone to follow the herd and so the raunch message will have some effect. One […]
[…] set her cap for the wealthy, handsome, kind and charming Mr. Knightley, a male 9 or 10! Picking the right herd to belong to, or braving it alone, can be very beneficial to women getting their hypergamy in […]
[…] it’s been feminists and raunch queens in control of the female herd, as I write about here: http://www.justfourguys.com/feminists-and-raunch-queens-are-the-dominant-alpha-mares/. The feminists have encouraged women to put career above what most of them desire […]
[…] since their ability is at its peak. Many of them prefer career and fun over marriage…or at least they prefer to follow the feminist mantras that the alpha mares of the herd tell […]
[…] in the message they deliver; and 2) I hope that a new group of alpha mares can rise up to replace the current hateful, feminist-supremacy alpha mares that guide the female herd and the beta-male followers (of course, the apex alpha males are the […]
[…] I’ve written here, the current alpha mares are feminists and raunch queens that tell women to put off relationships […]
[…] mightily to the raunch culture Han Solo has brilliantly explained in his excellent articles here and […]
[…] and naturally took advantage of the new opportunities while other women started to listen to the new alpha mares that told them that they needed to put off the oppression of relationships, marriage and children […]
[…] the direction a society takes. Usually the very top elites are male but sometimes they’re female and often the female elites serve the purposes of the male elites, putting the apex alpha males at […]
[…] in favor of empowering fair-minded women to gradually shift the female herd away from being dominated by feminists and raunch queens, and because the content is excellent, I’m sharing her […]
I think the raunch queens are currently winning hands down, that is in raw numbers. They have gravity on their side in many ways. Mass media is a huge lever. And it appeals to a natural sluttyness that most women have. It requires no effort, all is justified by natural emotionalism and blameless impulsiveness. The welfare state keeps there large mass of followers out of abject poverty (thank you feminism) As their numbers grow the welfare state will not be capable of maintaining the lifestyle they are accustomed too, no matter what politicians promise. And they can find a beta male to help out sometimes (the red pill is making some minor dents in this, something that will be vigorously shamed and shunned). There is one other thing this whole lifestyle is producing, a fast growing underclass, which can be easily seen now in America.
Let’s have a closer look at “Money, yes. Fame, yes. But they also often want the sexiest and most famous men.”
Money: Young followers of raunch queens are essentially set up to fail on this one. The raunch queens champion seeking male behaviors that are common in ghetto life, these bad boys are almost always poor and they will stay this way, it has to do with their chosen lifestyle. Furthermore young women’s natural instincts will consistently miss on wealth producing habits in young men. Modern society is not very old in evolutionally terms, a young women’s instincts just don’t work at all on this one. A solution is a formal dynamic social model that actually works. This is why young women are sometimes rather mechanical, comical and clumsy in their attempts at “gold digging”.
Fame: For 99.99999% of women are not going to have any sort of access to polish and edited public celebrities. So they will settle for something more local. This is where things like tatting, tagging and gang banging come into play. Let’s face it that’s her only real choice with the raunch queen model.
One thing that could change this calculus is a working cheap and easy male pill, this may happen in about a decade.
Raunch Queen’s won’t oppose the male pill much because they just don’t think – too high on drugs & drama in denial. They only react to the skanky impulses of the moment.
Feminism, that is the current feminist orthodoxy is collapsing, it is being remade, it’s clearly obsolete. It would not be shocking that it merges with red pill thinking in some form, that is certain red pill ideas and feminism to create a new amalgam. Perhaps they will be accepting and promote young male contraception. It would undermine their chief rival the raunch queens. However there will be feminist laggards who will see male contraception as a threat and oppose it.
Religion, the modern American Christianity meme has been sopping up the aftermath of the raunch queen followers. It has been a reliable heavy stream of new converts. It is very likely they will oppose the male pill almost as much as much as abortion, it is strongly in their interest to do so. Expect very heavy propaganda and legal action from this quarter opposing male contraception.
@Maxx
Thanks for stopping by and good thoughts.
One clarification on what I meant by “raunch queens.” These are the pop stars and such that actually achieve some level of fame and fortune. So they are getting rich by selling (and promoting) the message of women using their sexual power to get attention and sex from hot/hotter men. This is sold to the masses of those women (not all women) who love to either live this way themselves or vicariously do so and feel the rush of it (even though they may not participate in it that much).
The regular women who live slutty lives are themselves not raunch queens (since only those who become famous qualify as queens) but are rather the raunch “subjects” or followers or commoners.
I had some young early 20’s nieces of my girlfriend from Toronto Canada to come to visit last year here in Newport Beach California. They actually thought we could go to Hollywood and see Justin Bieber. There were quite disappointed when that did not happen.
I was thinking an earlier version of a raunch queen would be Marilin Monroe. It is true her public image was heavy edited by the then raining studio system and posthumously given a new heavily airbrushed imaged. She did seem to actually live a debauched “Fear And Loathing in Las Vegas” lifestyle and in the end she was no longer employable. She was the quintessential heartless-bitch. Highly unstable and unreliable. She plowed through lots of guys.
Tony Curtis said kissing her was like kissing Hitler. She is more or less an average and a not so good looking woman as far as attractiveness goes when you see her mid 1950’s un-airbrushed nudes.
Thanks for the good post, I was hunting for information such as this, going to look at the various other blog posts.